Today the Sejm appointed Michał Wójcik, a member of the ruling party, to the Postal Elections Investigative Committee, filling the vacancy left by Paweł Jabłoński, who was removed from the panel. A vote on the resolution to add Wójcik received unanimous support from the chamber, with all present MPs voting in favor and five MPs choosing to abstain. The decision marks a notable shift in the committee’s composition amid ongoing inquiries related to postal elections.
Earlier in February, Jabłoński’s exclusion from the committee became a central point of discussion as the investigation group decided to remove him from his post. Members allied with the governing bloc did not participate in that vote and left the room in solidarity with Jabłoński, highlighting the political tensions surrounding the inquiry process. The committee’s chair, Dariusz Joński, speaking to reporters, indicated plans to pursue Jabłoński’s appearance as a witness in the proceedings.
Declassification of emails
The removal of Jabłoński is linked to an episode from a prior meeting when the investigative panel released items from the work mailbox of Michał Dworczyk, who previously led the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. The materials were reviewed in the context of clarifying the prime ministerial decision to proceed with postal elections. Among the released communications there is a message dated May 13, 2020, which mentions the name of Paweł Jabłoński, who was then the deputy minister of foreign affairs. In that message, the former head of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery allegedly stated that he had consulted Jabłoński about the government’s decision to hold postal elections.
Following the email’s disclosure — which referenced discussions with Jabłoński — the committee’s chair began exploring the possibility of excluding Jabłoński from the panel. Advisors were asked to assess the procedural options and political implications of such a move, as deputies assessed whether conflicts of interest or transparency concerns warranted further action. The evolving narrative around the emails underscored the role of document disclosures in parliamentary oversight and the sensitivities involved when high level officials are cited in correspondence about electoral decisions.
As the inquiry proceeded, interpretations differed among party lines about what the email content signified for accountability and who should bear responsibility for the decisions surrounding the postal elections. The unfolding dynamics of the committee reflect a broader debate about the balance between parliamentary scrutiny and party solidarity during high-stakes investigations. Observers noted that the chain of events could influence the trajectory of the inquiry, including potential testimonies, further document releases, and future votes on membership in the committee.
In this context, the Sejm continues to monitor how information from internal communications might shape public understanding of the postal election process, and whether additional investigations or witnesses will be required to clarify the sequence of consultations and approvals tied to the electoral plan. The evolving situation illustrates the interplay between transparency, political accountability, and procedural norms within parliamentary committees tasked with examining controversial issues.
Overall, the changes to the committee’s lineup, the handling of the email material, and the discussions about witness testimony collectively reflect the ongoing tension between maintaining parliamentary oversight and preserving political cohesion within the governing and opposition factions. As more details emerge, observers will be watching for how the committee’s findings might influence perceptions of integrity and governance surrounding postal elections in the current political climate.